Australia needs dollar-wise defence

The Global Hawk pilotless surveillance aircraft is a remarkable piece of military technology.

As Defence Minister Robert Hill said when revealing the Government's new defence capability plan on Wednesday, the use of unmanned aircraft has the potential to revolutionise the gathering of intelligence for Australian troops deployed on foreign battlefields.

They have already witnessed the Global Hawk being used with great effect by US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is one of two contenders for the squadron of robotic surveillance aircraft that the Government has announced it will acquire under the new capability plan.

At $1 billion for a fleet of 12, they are not the biggest outlay in the $50 billion plan, which also includes $15.5 billion for a new combat aircraft to replace the RAAF's ageing F-18s and venerable F-111s, $4.5 billion to replace the Orion maritime surveillance aircraft, $6 billion for three air-defence destroyers for the RAN and $1 billion for 12 troop-carrying helicopters.

Up to $600 million will be spent on a replacement for the army's main battle tank, the German-designed Leopard.

There are several contenders, including a new version of the Leopard, but defence chiefs have not hidden their admiration for the US Army tank, the Abrams.

At one level, there are few surprises and little to object to in this 10-year military shopping project.

The kinds of equipment the Government and the Australian Defence Force have either already chosen or included on a wish list conform both with longstanding Australian strategic considerations (the need to protect extensive maritime approaches, reliance on state-of-the-art technology as a force multiplier) and with some newer ones (a desire for full inter-operability with US forces, the possibility of more Solomons-style interventions).

But questions may be raised about the Government's priorities.

The Global Hawk may be impressive, but does the Defence Force really need an aircraft capable of ranging not only across continental Australia and the archipelago to our north and west, but as far as the Korean peninsula?

However the war against terrorism develops, the immediate region is always likely to be the main focus of Australian military operations. That being so, cheaper aircraft may be more appropriate.

There is also the question of what the capability plan leaves out.

The Government has made an in-principle commitment to the Bush Administration's missile defence project, which this newspaper has argued is wasteful and unnecessary, but in this plan the Government has not told Australians just what resources it will allocate to missile defence, although the RAN's new destroyers may play a role.

This raises the further question of the financial obligations placed on future governments.

The cost of the RAAF's new fighters, the Orion replacements and the new destroyers are all substantially higher in this latest plan than when they were first announced. What will their final price tags be?

Australia's strategic environment in 10 years may be very different from that which now applies, yet the government of the day could well be saddled with expensive items of military technology that do not suit its needs.

The F-111, it should be remembered, was ordered by the Menzies government in the 1960s because it wanted an aircraft capable of bombing Jakarta. Other uses were found for the F-111, but governments need to bear in mind that not all defence acquisitions will be so easily adaptable.